The Allahabad High Court has raised a significant question on legal ethics and government representation, seeking clarity on whether a State law officer can appear for a private individual in a case where the government itself is a party.
The issue surfaced during the hearing of a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that denied her maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision has been pending since 2018 and names the State of Uttar Pradesh as one of the parties.
Read also:- 67 Days Too Long: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MPDA Detention, Cites Liberty Concerns
During the hearing, Advocate Indrasen Singh Tomar-who is appointed as an Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-requested permission to represent the husband, a private party in the same matter.
The request immediately drew objections from the wife’s counsel. It was argued that once a lawyer is appointed as a State law officer, he cannot represent a private litigant in proceedings where the State is already involved.
Taking note of the objection, the Bench sought clarity on the legal position. Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that the issue goes beyond the individual case and touches upon the defined duties of State-appointed lawyers.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Sets Aside Furlough Rejection, Says Long-Term Prisoner Not a ‘Habitual Offender’
“The Court finds it necessary to seek an official report on the rights and duties of an Additional Chief Standing Counsel in such circumstances,” the Bench remarked during the hearing.
The Court has now directed the Principal Secretary (Law) and Legal Remembrancer of Uttar Pradesh to submit a detailed report. The report must explain whether existing rules or provisions allow an Additional Chief Standing Counsel to appear for a private party in a case involving the State.The State has been given two weeks to place its official stand before the Court.
The matter will be taken up again after the report is received.
Case Title: Meera Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 2843 of 2018
